AMD's 2007 lineup totally revealed

[LordPope]

http://forum.effizienzgurus.de/f36/sammelthread-amd-k10-altair-antares-arcturus-t258-7.html

 

[YO_KID37]

OMG! AMD is actually going to release CPU's in the Sub 1000's, Very Very Impressive AMD

*I can say Sub-1000's because their Quad FX CPU with the highest Ghz is 999$ so the 1.9Ghz-2.3Ghz should be around 300-600$Range
So the Dual-Core Kuma's should be in 200-400$Range(maybe more if they truly are 40% better)

EDIT: Very messed up naming Scheme they have x2 1900?? X4 1900?? Wow they have reverted back to K7 Athlon XP(my CPU) naming's, Or the ATI may have suggest their new Names (1900XTX vs X4 1900+ )

 

[Wombat2]

As much as AMD fanbois bitch and moan about Intel, the only reason why AMD will be forced to release Barcelona at more reasonable prices is the real competition from Intels core arch.

 

[scubageek]

As much as AMD fanbois bitch and moan about Intel, the only reason why AMD will be forced to release Barcelona at more reasonable prices is the real competition from Intels core arch.

Only an ID 10 T would think that Intel is the reason for CPU competition.

I applaud their decision to release the C2D's at reasonable prices, but if AMD was not around, that would have not been the case.

As a matter of fact, we probably would have been complaining about the Heat of the P4's, if Intel had moved that fast, at $1k to $1500 per CPU.

Intel was very good at milking a CPU before releasing another better CPU, all the while keeping prices inflated.

Mind you, I am no AMD fanboi either, AMD WOULD do the same if they were the 900lb gorilla.

The one thing I can't understand is why the fanboi's just can't say, I love my CPU, but thank goodness for the other side, that allows me to get better CPU's faster and cheaper, than if only 1 CPU company was around.

Intel isn't selling cheaper C2D's because they want to, they want to put AMd out of busines, in the CPU arena, and can afford to make slim, if that, profit from a CPU.

AMD would do the same if they were in Intels position.

But the fact both are still around and both are trying to out do each other, makes the market much better for us, the consumer.

I'll never understand why some of you want AMD to die or Intel to die, I say let them both live, and hope a 3rd CPU company can step up and make the market even that much better...

Those with the monopoly have the gold and make the rules, and we the consumer just get shafted.

 

[jitpublisher]

As much as AMD fanbois bitch and moan about Intel, the only reason why AMD will be forced to release Barcelona at more reasonable prices is the real competition from Intels core arch.

Only an ID 10 T would think that Intel is the reason for CPU competition.

I applaud their decision to release the C2D's at reasonable prices, but if AMD was not around, that would have not been the case.

As a matter of fact, we probably would have been complaining about the Heat of the P4's, if Intel had moved that fast, at $1k to $1500 per CPU.

Intel was very good at milking a CPU before releasing another better CPU, all the while keeping prices inflated.

Mind you, I am no AMD fanboi either, AMD WOULD do the same if they were the 900lb gorilla.

The one thing I can't understand is why the fanboi's just can't say, I love my CPU, but thank goodness for the other side, that allows me to get better CPU's faster and cheaper, than if only 1 CPU company was around.

Intel isn't selling cheaper C2D's because they want to, they want to put AMd out of busines, in the CPU arena, and can afford to make slim, if that, profit from a CPU.

AMD would do the same if they were in Intels position.

But the fact both are still around and both are trying to out do each other, makes the market much better for us, the consumer.

I'll never understand why some of you want AMD to die or Intel to die, I say let them both live, and hope a 3rd CPU company can step up and make the market even that much better...

Those with the monopoly have the gold and make the rules, and we the consumer just get shafted.

Well said. I'll keep on buying AMD. It's not because I think AMD is so great nor am I a fanboy. I just simply refuse to spend any more of my money with Intel. They milked me for enough cash through the 90's.

 

[aladar]

EDIT: Very messed up naming Scheme they have x2 1900?? X4 1900?? Wow they have reverted back to K7 Athlon XP(my CPU) naming's, Or the ATI may have suggest their new Names (1900XTX vs X4 1900+ )

Seems very simple:

the X2 has 2 cores, and the X4 has 4 cores...

the X2 1900 and the X4 1900 have 1.9GHz, the X2 2100 and X4 2100 have 2.1GHz...

If this is gona be it, it does seems alot easier than other naming schemes (until a core review is going to mess this up).

 

[fifth_pineapple]

ooohhhh. i think i wanna buy an agena x4 2100 sounds good to me!

 

[aladar]

As much as AMD fanbois bitch and moan about Intel, the only reason why AMD will be forced to release Barcelona at more reasonable prices is the real competition from Intels core arch.

Only an ID 10 T would think that Intel is the reason for CPU competition.

I applaud their decision to release the C2D's at reasonable prices, but if AMD was not around, that would have not been the case.

As a matter of fact, we probably would have been complaining about the Heat of the P4's, if Intel had moved that fast, at $1k to $1500 per CPU.

Intel was very good at milking a CPU before releasing another better CPU, all the while keeping prices inflated.

Mind you, I am no AMD fanboi either, AMD WOULD do the same if they were the 900lb gorilla.

The one thing I can't understand is why the fanboi's just can't say, I love my CPU, but thank goodness for the other side, that allows me to get better CPU's faster and cheaper, than if only 1 CPU company was around.

Intel isn't selling cheaper C2D's because they want to, they want to put AMd out of busines, in the CPU arena, and can afford to make slim, if that, profit from a CPU.

AMD would do the same if they were in Intels position.

But the fact both are still around and both are trying to out do each other, makes the market much better for us, the consumer.

I'll never understand why some of you want AMD to die or Intel to die, I say let them both live, and hope a 3rd CPU company can step up and make the market even that much better...

Those with the monopoly have the gold and make the rules, and we the consumer just get shafted.

Competion is a wonderfull thing (except when it's cut-throat competion)...

if there was no competion we would still be using the 8086 cpu from intel (and this goes either way).

Who believes we would have C2D today if it wasn't for the K8?

 

[HotFoot]

I'm not terribly impressed with the TDP ratings. I would hope that AMD could bring more efficient processors considering the new architecture and the maturing of the 65nm process. What I mean is that why are their higher-end dual-cores rated at 89W? They'd better do extremely well against the C2D in order to keep performance/watt competitive.

Also, now that Intel has released low-wattage 53xx parts, I think AMD might have a tougher sell with 95 and 120W Opterons. Again, performance/watt is very important in this market, so AMD better have the performance to justify the heat.

I'll be sticking to the lower-wattage parts myself. If I want high performance (and heat) I'll just overclock.

And I like the naming convention. If AMD keeps things simple in terms of the same amount of cache across a family, then why not just say how many cores and what clock speed? I think consumers are starting to realise that clocks only count within a given family.

 

[YO_KID37]

But remember AMD is Implementing AM2+ for Core Throttling and HT3
So Heating and TDP won't be anything huge with C'n Q Enabled. Expect to see no voltage or heating problems, they should be virtually non-comparison to the QuadFX processors.

 

[gr8mikey]

I notice the poster's name in that forum is W0mbat is he any relation to you per chance?

I just thought it funny that the inquirer posted this as fact when they probably don't know this guy from Adam.

 

[HotFoot]

LOL, one should hope not! In any case, one 120W Agena should outperform two 125W QuadFX chips, so certainly improvement is in the pipe.

For me, I'm not concerned with power consumption with Cool'n'Quiet and idle settings, since my processors actually work for a living. I wonder what cpu loads in server farms are like, but to me what really matters is how much heat you have to deal with when you're running 80%+ CPU utilisation 24/7.

 

[BaldEagle]

OMG! AMD is actually going to release CPU's in the Sub 1000's, Very Very Impressive AMD

*I can say Sub-1000's because their Quad FX CPU with the highest Ghz is 999$ so the 1.9Ghz-2.3Ghz should be around 300-600$Range
So the Dual-Core Kuma's should be in 200-400$Range(maybe more if they truly are 40% better)

EDIT: Very messed up naming Scheme they have x2 1900?? X4 1900?? Wow they have reverted back to K7 Athlon XP(my CPU) naming's, Or the ATI may have suggest their new Names (1900XTX vs X4 1900+ )

The sub 1000 release is entirely AMD's doing since they have fallen substantially behind Intel in performance (12 months). If Barcelona had released right after Core2Duo they could have went over 1000 but by release time the Core2Duo will have been out for a year and already have dropped 30% in price with Penryn warming up for launch.

The naming thanks to Intel and Core2Duo is relatively straight forward #cores and clock speed. Core2Duo finally put an end to Intel pushing the Netburst megahertz myth.

 

[Wombat2]

He's my German cousin twice removed.

Hilarious how the Inq immediately posted his stuff :lol:

 

[gOJDO]

I notice the poster's name in that forum is W0mbat is he any relation to you per chance?

I just thought it funny that the inquirer posted this as fact when they probably don't know this guy from Adam.

Wombat is the lamer who faked a CPUz monitor photos. Consider any information from this dude as BS and not true. The table seems OK, but it is full of BS as much as the author:
All the K8 codenames Athlon64, Athlon64 FX, Athlon X2, Opteron and Sempron are going to be discountinued, and the K10 line will have new codenames Kuma, Agena FX, Agena, Barcelona and Rana respectively.
There will be no such thing as Agena, AgenaFX, Barcelona or Kuma core! The cores of all K10(K8L) CPUs are same and are K10(K8L). The physical differences of those CPUs will be the number of cores, the number of HTT links and the socket package, but their cores are all identical.

So, once again, WOMBAT is trolling around on the internet.I really don't get his point of faking and spreading BS. Maybe he needs some psychiatric help, so don't be mad on him.

 

[jamiepotter]

I must admit I was confused, because I thought Barcelona was only coming out on Socket F, whereas Agena and Kuma would come out on AM2 sockets.

 

[gr8mikey]

So in conclulsion: If it looks like BS and it smells like BS, but it happens to be posted in a language other than english, it is still BS.

 

[YO_KID37]

Well my Kazakh friend, just like every Opteron since Socket 939 has had a Desktop Opteron,
The Opteron 100 Series for Socket 939
The Opteron 1000 Series for Socket AM2
So the 1200 Series for Socket AM2 and AM2+ Would seem logical

 

[jamiepotter]

Dzienkuje.

 

[YO_KID37]

Let's just say Barcelona is going to be like having 4 of these Guys Working for your Floatpoint Operations (Saying: how could you possibly have the Heart to Overclock these Crazy Guys )
Come on guy's Just look at these guys performing Instruction/Executions in the middle of the video :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAN7Ts0xBo

Just look at the Groundbreaking 8O Performance they exhibit near the ending, with the gears and sprockets all churning away on performing for you

 

[tamalero]

I'm not terribly impressed with the TDP ratings. I would hope that AMD could bring more efficient processors considering the new architecture and the maturing of the 65nm process. What I mean is that why are their higher-end dual-cores rated at 89W? They'd better do extremely well against the C2D in order to keep performance/watt competitive.

Also, now that Intel has released low-wattage 53xx parts, I think AMD might have a tougher sell with 95 and 120W Opterons. Again, performance/watt is very important in this market, so AMD better have the performance to justify the heat.

I'll be sticking to the lower-wattage parts myself. If I want high performance (and heat) I'll just overclock.

And I like the naming convention. If AMD keeps things simple in terms of the same amount of cache across a family, then why not just say how many cores and what clock speed? I think consumers are starting to realise that clocks only count within a given family.

because intel's TDP != AMDs TDP ?
besides, AMD never uses "typical load"
uses maximum ...
in short words.. AMD's =worst case generation, Intels = typical

id say we're gonna go into the ghz wars again as both will have similar performance...

also, like others said, with the advanced power scheme of amd, I think the energy wont be a problem.

So in conclulsion: If it looks like BS and it smells like BS, but it happens to be posted in a language other than english, it is still BS.

Im preety sure all europeans, french, german & stuff, say "BULLS..." everytime bush says his speechs in english

 

[luminaris]

As much as AMD fanbois bitch and moan about Intel, the only reason why AMD will be forced to release Barcelona at more reasonable prices is the real competition from Intels core arch.

Intel was very good at milking a CPU before releasing another better CPU, all the while keeping prices inflated.

Mind you, I am no AMD fanboi either, AMD WOULD do the same if they were the 900lb gorilla.

The one thing I can't understand is why the fanboi's just can't say, I love my CPU, but thank goodness for the other side, that allows me to get better CPU's faster and cheaper, than if only 1 CPU company was around.

Intel isn't selling cheaper C2D's because they want to, they want to put AMd out of busines, in the CPU arena, and can afford to make slim, if that, profit from a CPU.

AMD would do the same if they were in Intels position.


Those with the monopoly have the gold and make the rules, and we the consumer just get shafted.

Wombat2 is absolutely correct. Let's take another angle at this since it keeps getting overlooked:
Intel had netburst around which we all know, was inferior to AMDs technology. During the entire tenure of netburst, AMD could've very easily dropped THEIR prices to undermine Intel at any given time much like they have now. Intel dropped their prices as, they are ahead of AMD in terms of technology which means, they can take advantage. AMD could have very much done the same thing but they didn't. Yes, the cost of producing those 90nm chips was a lot higher but, they certainly could've taken advantage of a larger animal by dropping their prices at a time when they were ahead of the game.

Just goes to show who has better marketing...

 

[tamalero]

As much as AMD fanbois bitch and moan about Intel, the only reason why AMD will be forced to release Barcelona at more reasonable prices is the real competition from Intels core arch.

Intel was very good at milking a CPU before releasing another better CPU, all the while keeping prices inflated.

Mind you, I am no AMD fanboi either, AMD WOULD do the same if they were the 900lb gorilla.

The one thing I can't understand is why the fanboi's just can't say, I love my CPU, but thank goodness for the other side, that allows me to get better CPU's faster and cheaper, than if only 1 CPU company was around.

Intel isn't selling cheaper C2D's because they want to, they want to put AMd out of busines, in the CPU arena, and can afford to make slim, if that, profit from a CPU.

AMD would do the same if they were in Intels position.


Those with the monopoly have the gold and make the rules, and we the consumer just get shafted.

Wombat2 is absolutely correct. Let's take another angle at this since it keeps getting overlooked:
Intel had netburst around which we all know, was inferior to AMDs technology. During the entire tenure of netburst, AMD could've very easily dropped THEIR prices to undermine Intel at any given time much like they have now. Intel dropped their prices as, they are ahead of AMD in terms of technology which means, they can take advantage. AMD could have very much done the same thing but they didn't. Yes, the cost of producing those 90nm chips was a lot higher but, they certainly could've taken advantage of a larger animal by dropping their prices at a time when they were ahead of the game.

Just goes to show who has better marketing...

you forgot something very important...
the CAPACITY in your equation...

if AMD lowered their prices,demand would be huge, and there wasnt a single oportunity to increase their production that fast..

 

[luminaris]

Intel and AMD have always had capacity issues in the past. My point did not include capacity issues as, I wasn't trying to make a point regarding capacity and output. My point is this: Intel isn't the only company that has the capability of making chip prices fluctuate. Yes, i'll agree there are many variables but all I've been reading is how Intel is merely responsible for the price war which isn't and/or does not have to be the case.

 

[HotFoot]

I have to admit that rated TDP is at best an estimate. Within the same CPU family, even if all processors may be rated at 65W (like the C2D), the slower chips consume less power. I will be more interested in independent measurement of either system or CPU power draw at load, comparing the K10 to the K8 and C2D. It's another case of taking manufacturer's performance assersions with a grain of salt.

As far as Intel's TDP scheme, I've heard a lot of people talk about how Intel is more lenient with their specifications. However, articles I've read actually show that Intel's TDP is actually quite generous and in general you are not likely to ever reach or exceed the rated power. Here is one link that discusses the topic using THG numbers.

In another review I read a week ago (wish I could find it), a PD940 or similar chip running 100% CPU utilisation with superpi was measured to consume on the order of 80W, while I believe this chip is rated for 95 or 110W. I'm trying to find the link, but I don't know which review site that was.